Shitstorm in academia over wanking paper

They didn't offer this class in USC...

Here's the paper. One can see why the shit has hit the fan. It's quite silly. But then, a lot of academic work is. And yet out of that silliness, sometimes comes insights.

This thread has been done to death.

We get it. Liberal professors are so radical and they speak for all liberals. Look how radical liberals are. They are the radical one.

Never mind the Republican pipe bombs, mass shootings, running over people with their tucks for sport and pledging to offer no quarter to their fellow Americans.

I’d take my chances with democrats anyday.

He's sure homely.

You sound like a pedophile, OP. And the PHD creep obviously is one.

It lit up Twitter. Including tweets from black female academics pushing the racist meme that it was another represention of white male hegemony. Any excuse!

Oh look. Look how radical democrats are.

Yawn!

Republicans are so disloyal to this country that gave them so much prickly and illgotten wealth.

You sound like a virtue-signalling scolding frau R5 who can’t grasp the basics of amusing nuance. DL isn’t the right place for you.

OP, I've, sadly, been here since 2003. Perhaps, it is you who has landed in the wrong place, in all ways. Think about me when you're jerking off to child porn.

I’m not buying this as a shitstorm.

Who fucking cares. They are going to lock up trump and his shitlings and throw away the key.

Boris Johnson couldn’t be sacked fast enough to save that flaming cesspit that was the Uk.. How can they continue to define themselves as “first world” when many second world countries are fairing far better. It’s clear that the classification of England as a first world country is a falsehood and at most a nod to a bygone era.

The conservatives on both sides of the pond exacerbated the Covid pandemic as the twin leaders of the free world. And the blew it. Millions died. Chaos and disruption continues to this day.

This professor means nothing and everyone should register to vote these “conservative” bastards out of office and back to the stone ages where they would be more at home.

This thread is the work of a sad sack loser. Get a life and know that you are not welcome here. Go somewhere where you’re wanted. Far away from here and leave this place in peace.

So some guy got a PHD in whacking off to Japanese child porn and we're supposed to pretend that isn't at least weird?

He wanked paper wasn’t he worried about the paper cuts?

Yes, r12 because it's all a "riGhT wiNg cOnSPiRaCY tO deSTraCT uS!"

Apparently, the average DLer has the brain the size of a sea-monkey and can only focus on one issue at a time. God forbid there be multiple issues going on in the world worth our attention.

Someone needs to get a life with these desperate professor threads.

Seems like someone couldn’t get into college and is rabidly bitter about it with the constant professor/academia threads. but there are other avenues in life.

As a researcher in a *real* science, this just pisses me off. I've published scores of papers and never gotten so much as a tweet about any of them. 😖

Fuck this perv.

These apathetic parasites that wait around for everyone else to solve political issues love to pretend they aren’t political out of one side of their hateful mouths and then trash liberal people as somehow bad people are the worst living scum on the planet.

It’s only when they want to spew their vile hatred that anyone is “allowed” to discuss the politics associated.

Ooh, but a friend who is a psych professor for doxxed by the "Libs of Tiktok" Twitter account last week, so maybe not getting tweeted about isn't the worst thing.

Someone couldn’t hack it at school so they sit around and make thread after thread about professors. There are hundreds of them. The time and dedication is remarkable.

They come on here like they are criticizing one of their “colleagues” like give me a break.

Here we go with the sock puppets and the fantasies of “coworkers” at the “university” oh lord as if.

*got* doxxed.

Nobody is even reading this ridiculous thread not sure why anyone bothered with correcting typos smh

r18, it's gross you'd be friends with anyone who made the rogues' gallery of groomers on Libs of TikTok.

What happens in academia affects everyone eventually. So it IS important. Including some of its petty fights. eg The whole current gender war sprang out of work there that’s been going on for the past decade and more. It’s at least more interesting than fucking Lucille Ball and soap threads.

“Shitstom” is a bit of a stretch, no?

Nobody has ever even heard of this let alone all of academia. One person on twitter is not a “shitstorm”.

Fuck off r23. It's a right wing hate account. It's an honor to get mentioned by them.

Awww they let OP “teach” a “class” at the loony bit to stuffed animals and now he thinks he is a university professor just talking shop about academia.

I think it would've been questionable but overall okay to study the material and right a paper on shotacon and yaoi if he didn't incorporate his own masturbation into the research. For example, he could look at statistics to see how popular this material is. He could interview artists to understand why they make it. He could interview fans from Japan and compare them to fans in the West and understand if there is a cultural difference in how it is consumed and interpreted. He could look into the ethics of it. It's a cartoon, so no children are being harmed. But perhaps it inspires a consumer of the media to harm children in the future?

OP’s act is tired and stale. It’s played out to death and back.

Wankers aweigh.

This thread is a disaster.

Died on the vine.

Thread Closed.

[quote] Nobody has ever heard of this

And yet it it is being covered by all the major English press: The Times, Daily Telegraph, Daily Express, Daily Mail, Guardian. And Daily Beast in US so far.

Apologies it hasn’t reached the Bumfuckle Daily Bugle yet for your validation R26. Write them a stiff note.

[quote]What happens in academia affects everyone eventually

I've told myself that so many times. I identified the amino acid dimers that cause g-protein coupled receptors to be expressed on a cell surface and I just *know* that one day, someone's gonna take that research, and someone's gonna take their research, and so on and so on and cure Ebola or something.

And then you look at researchgate or pubmed and you see how many people read your article or cited it and you're like "4?!! That took me two years!!" 🙄

I should have become a dinosaur scientist. It's not that controversial and people fucking love dinosaurs.

All trash magazines.

Anyone laws had enough of these hateful Brits meddling in American business. don’t they have their own websites in England? Did they go under during the Brexit? Now that was the scam of the century.

Nothing that a good shot of Thorazine can’t cure.

Americans are stupid and the Left is now the Right of the early 90s.

[quote] We get it. Liberal professors are so radical and they speak for all liberals.

Their bullshit has taken over the Democratic Party.

The dude looks crazy.

Does he know the professor who went to DC to tell Josh Hawley that men can also get pregnant? Do these professors meet in a secret lair in a swamp somewhere to go over how to be stupid assholes while maintaining an air of authority?

Imagine slamming an account that exposes child predators as a hate account, as though it's a bad thing to hate child predators.

Let me guess, you're a biological sex denialist (the new flat earthers), support sterilizing gay and lesbian children and hate women (actual women not AGP men in drag).

Anyone that uses the word "groomers" is a right wing shill that gets blocked. You sound like Marjorie Taylor Greene. Respond. I won't see it, troll.

r44 They said [bold]predators[/bold]. And getting mad over people calling out child predators is, to me, the weirdest hill to choose to die on. But whatever.

Nobody is dying on any hill. People are fed up with Republican bullies and lgbt shame posts. It’s so 2020. Read the room.

Take heart r36. Some egghead a fee years ago was probably working on a monkeypox vax while thinking “This is never going to be a THING.”

Typing this from Pattaya. Ping and Pong who are sitting on my lap send their love. So does R5’s husband who is sitting at the next table. God don’t you just love drinks with teeny umbrellas!

Now where were we…

[quote][R44] They said predators. And getting mad over people calling out child predators is, to me, the weirdest hill to choose to die on. But whatever

They said groomers dummy.

"r18, it's gross you'd be friends with anyone who made the rogues' gallery of [bold]groomers[/bold] on Libs of TikTok"

The reason this became a shit storm was that the initial criticism of the study came from TERFy types and was amplified by.a Tory MP.

Blue tick academics then started attacking the MP without reading the background of the paper and more blue tick academics joined in the pile on without seeing the ‘do you know what you’re defending’ replies.

People who work in universities are meant to be clever.

[quote]lgbt shame posts

The only "shame" you should have is the fact that your initial, gut reaction is to jump to the defense of people sexualizing children just because they hide behind the LGBT Teflon shield. There was a time when the filth that tried to weasel their way into the community (see: NAMBLA) was quickly handled and discarded internally with the rest of the trash. Now, people like you are proudly guarding these same weirdos under a new name and accepting them as "LGBT" when in reality, they're just the same sick imposters who were rightfully kicked out by the eldergays of yesteryear who actually had some goddamn sense.

You're reacting with emotion instead of reason, and it's hurting the community further because now we all look like we're protecting child predators. I hope you realize that. Or maybe you don't care. Who knows?

I'm just tired of this.

[quote]I think it would've been questionable but overall okay to study the material

Not questionable at all. It's the duty of academia to research existing phenomenon, to learn more. What's somewhat amusing is that, like something out of a Woody Allen movie, he took an illogical-logical next step. Was it unethical? If he'd written it as a non-academic article about his personal observations as someone with an (alleged) interest teenage erotica, it might have flown. The Destroyer mag that he previously put out seems to have been project to explore his personal interest via images of teenage boys with pseudo-intellectual ramblings. As an oblique observation: let's not forget, XY Magazine did the very same thing with images of teenage boys and garnered a substantial circulation. The gay media are now very cautious to avoid marketing to teenagers full stop for fear of being slammed as groomers, so any affirmative messaging or otherwise that gay teenagers now get is purely from TikTok etc. etc.

Germaine Greer did that almost two decades ago... men like this just steal everything from rad fems.

Happily for one's mental health, darling Germaine never wrote that she'd finger fucked herself while looking at droopy Björn Andrésen.

Cultural theory and studies are very banal. You can write a paper on the silliest subjects as long as you couch it in academic jargon. Actually, the point of the exercise IS the jargon.

Thanks for that link R49. The comments on it make for very interesting read. And need it be said: Japan truly is another planet, where the cultural wars on racism and sex that have swept Western society are irrelevant, because it is a highly homogenous society strictly governed by social etiquette.

True R54. Quantum Gravity is a cultural and linguistic construct. Look up the Sokol hoax. We were laughing in STEM about this 20 years ago. We are not laughing anymore….

Hopefully this is a Sokal hoax type moment for the humanities. There is far too much paedophile apologist bullshit that flies under the radar as “edgy” scholarship.

The Humanities are immune against Sokal because they thrive on cultural and linguistic bullshit. Sadly, some of this jargon and MO had crept into the sciences. See sex and gender debate.

[quote]Hopefully this is a Sokal hoax type moment for the humanities.

If only.

But no, this man is actually serious. Sadly.

[quote]wanking paper

Bounty is my clean-up of choice.

[quote]Bounty is my clean-up of choice.

So bad for the environment. There's a big fatberg with your cum-stained paper towels that some poor municipal worker has to fish out of a sewer now. Use a cloth towel or a t-shirt like a real man.

Do we have another source other than the ridiculous hate-newspaper called 'the Guardian'?

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

[quote]The only "shame" you should have is the fact that your initial, gut reaction is to jump to the defense of people sexualizing children just because they hide behind the LGBT Teflon shield. There was a time when the filth that tried to weasel their way into the community (see: NAMBLA) was quickly handled and discarded internally with the rest of the trash. Now, people like you are proudly guarding these same weirdos under a new name and accepting them as "LGBT" when in reality, they're just the same sick imposters who were rightfully kicked out by the eldergays of yesteryear who actually had some goddamn sense.

R50? That poster was defending a post about my friend, who is not LGBT, wasn't taking about sex, and definitely wasn't taking about child sexual predators but got called a "groomer" (a favorite word of Republican congressional candidates that is used against all of us for daring to object to Florida's "Don't Say Gay" bill.) and got doxxed by the Libs of TikTok. They never defended child sexual predators. Read before you post!

[quote]You're reacting with emotion instead of reason, and it's hurting the community further because now we all look like we're protecting child predators. I hope you realize that. Or maybe you don't care. Who knows?

YOU'RE reacting with emotion because AGAIN, they weren't defending child sexual predators!!

[quote]I'm just tired of this.

We all are, Karen. 🙄

Way to slay ‘em r64.

He is way too close to the camera.

r64 You do realize that your response at r44 looks like it's responding to r43 since you neglected to tag r23, right? Also, you do realize that I was referring to r43 in r45, right? And in conclusion, you are not r46, but that's who I was responding to in r50, so all in all what are you even on about, here?

Ok r67, your post is confusing as shit and you are very confused.

[quote][R64] You do realize that your response at [R44] looks like it's responding to [R43] since you neglected to tag [R23], right?

No it doesn't because I referred to the poster who used "groomers". It's very clear that I was taking about (? I don't know, they're blocked!) r23!

[quote]Also, you do realize that I was referring to [R43] in [R45], right?

Aww, but you didn't tag r43 (your rules!) and you tagged me at r44. So why the fuck would I know or care who you "really" were referring to?

[quote]And in conclusion, you are not [R46], but that's who I was responding to in [R50], so all in all what are you even on about, here.

And r46 was responding to you saying to me that child predators was a weird hill to die on and r46 said no one was dying on any hill over Republican bully tactics against LGBT people (like calling them groomers), a defense of my comment at r44. And I'm defending them back.

Stop being dense!

Karl is being outed as having a history of being into underage boys. Twitter has receipts.

Jesus Christ, he’s on record saying that he watches child porn.

I think his research sounds interesting. I can't wait to see the movie!

Paper removed from original link, full text at link below.

This guy is alive and Rushdie is on the edge of death.

R67 and R68, I wish people would just sign their bloody posts, lol!

Also, I had OP on Ignore and did a word search of 'shitstorm' out of curiosity. Seems like I made a good decision.

You do have to give the guy some credit for managing to include the sentence:

"And so I realized that my body was equipped with a research tool of its own that could give me, quite literally, a first-hand understanding of shota'

Anyway yeah I followed the entire explosion on twitter with interest. Many aspects of this are potentially dodgy: he does hint in the paper at wanting to have an impact on 'policymaking' which certainly could be read as a wish to normalise pornographic material depicting children. His previous publications are also pretty explicit about indulging a fantasy for teenage boys so I think its pretty clear where he's coming from. You could maybe argue that since 'Shota' are drawings the production of the material doesn't harm any actual children, lessening the ethical impact. On the other hand, though this paper doesn't I think contribute to it, there has to be room in academia for a conversation about what kind of material dealing with these kinds of 'forbidden' desires should and should not be legally available, and how this may impact on efforts to lessen child sexual abuse and prevent paedophiles from offending.

The paper's argument doesn't really make sense, in that he claims this project is to understand his study subjects (men who read this kind of manga porn) better: yet he doesn't discuss his own prior relationship with the material (presumably he is attracted to the young boys depicted: if not, and he were straight, I'd struggle to see how forcing himself to masturbate to material he doesn't have a sexual interest in for three months would increase his understanding of anything). Yet at the end he makes some weird comments about self-care and admits he has no idea if these thoughts are his alone or might be shared by the study subjects.

Depressingly for everyone else in academia, the university of Manchester is funding him through his PhD and he got published in a top-rated journal. Both are ducking for cover under the shitstorm. I'd imagine his supervisor is going to get crucified. Incidentally I checked out his YouTube channel and found he failed his first year PhD ethics review....(!).

Buried in twitter was a few thoughtful and useful critiques of this material and this work: unfortunately they were overwhelmed by the performative dogpiling and rage emoting that always seems to have to happen in these instances, even from academics.

[quote]No it doesn't because I referred to the poster who used "groomers". It's very clear that I was taking about (? I don't know, they're blocked!) [R23]!

Ok. In my defense, I had no idea who you weren't responding to r43 when I initially replied to your post at r45, and didn't realize you were actually referring to r23 until I responded to your post at r67 after scrolling up to notice your response at r48 specifically quoting them. But if it makes you feel better, MAH BAD.

[quote]Aww, but you didn't tag [R43] (your rules!)

Never claimed it as my rule. It was, however, an explanation for the confusion that began at r45. That said, I was speaking generally about this matter since certain people like you and r46 want to turn "groomer" into some kind of slur which will, naturally, have the indirect (and severely harmful) consequence of protecting whole child predators -excuse me, I mean [italic]MAPS[/italic]-, so I stand by my statement of this being a weird-ass hill to die on.

[quote]So why the fuck would I know or care who you "really" were referring to?

This goes both ways. After all, I did specifically say "predators" at r45 and r43 was so clearly the most recent person to use the term [bold]right above you[/bold]. Whereas you decided to respond to/reference a post, damn-near 20 replies up without tagging them, and then have the never to get an attitude when someone didn't immediately catch who the hell you were talking about. So, really, who's the dense one, here?

[quote][R67] and [R68], I wish people would just sign their bloody posts, lol!

No.

*nerve

One of his references (Langarita Adiego 2019) was an anthropological researcher (and a gay man) who started cruising in parks as a research method (which makes significantly more sense to me). I checked out the paper for science. He started the study mainly targetting men between 25 and 40 to cruise with, realised that his affinity with typical beauty standards was skewing his results, and finished by sucking off and fondling mainly older Pakistani and Moroccan men instead. Truly going where the research takes you.

^ Taxpayers are paying for this incestuous rubbish.

[quote]That said, I was speaking generally about this matter since certain people like you and [R46] want to turn "groomer" into some kind of slur which will, naturally, have the indirect (and severely harmful) consequence of protecting whole child predators -excuse me, I mean MAPS

Neither r46 nor I ever defended child sexual predators. The term groomer has already been co-opted by the right to refer to gay men as perverts who are recruiting children because we (at least I) believe that banning the term "gay" in schools in Florida is harmful to kids that are gong to grow up to be gay or that have gay parents or relatives or friends. It's not recruiting to tell a 5th grader that some men marry men. Denying them that erases them. It means they won't get any sexual education or information about HIV in school and they will grow up thinking they are wrong and they will face harm because of it.

The Republicans are the ones using "groomer" as a weapon against LGBT people and they are doing it in political ads. They are setting the stage to roll back any rights for gay adults (and if you don't think they are, let me direct you to a recent ruling on abortion by the Supreme Court where Clarence Thomas specifically said undoing gay marriage is an issue the court needs to consider).

Groomers is a hateful term that has been weaponized against gay people. Anyone using it today isn't taking about child predators, they're talking about gay uncles taking their nieces and nephews to Drag Queen library story times and other child appropriate events. They're not taking them to sex clubs. They're taking them to libraries. And recently a library in Michigan was closed because it was definded because they refused to remove LGBT books *for adults*.

So yes, groomer is a loaded word. It's a hammer. You're a nail. And you're about to get hit over the head by someone using the term "groomer".

As someone who was heavily involved in the anime scene and took an interest in Japanese culture as a teen, r76, I will have you know that there is most definitely a significant subset of the anime fan community that romanticizes pedophilia. Dance in the Vampire Bund comes to mind; the main character is a vampire who is technically a grown woman eternally stuck in a little girls body a la Claudia from Anne Rice's The Vampire Chronicles. Speaking of which, Claudie and Louis' relationship in that series was borderline pedophilic also. If I recall correctly, Claudia is described as Louis' "paramour" in the books.

The straw that broke the camel's back for me over a decade ago was The Black Butler fandom full of crazies who insisted on romanticizing the main character (Ciel a precocious 12 year old boy) with his butler (a grown man...demon...whatever). The anime, itself, even purposely teases some sort of sexual relationship in ways that I'm surprised Funimation was even permitted to dub into English.

There is a reason most self-professed "MAPS" on social media use anime characters for their profile photos. Usually shotacon or lolicon (young girls) characters.

Exhibit A:

r77, there's only one type of person who objects to the term "groomers". It's the same type of person with a vested interested in halting the puberty of children.

Thanks R82 I'm not really familiar with the different types of manga.

What you fail to realize or acknowledge r82 is that there was a time when labeling gays "groomers" had no basis in reality nor were there any examples of gays targeting or sexualizing children. I was, indeed, a hate tactic used by the right when NAMBLA started in on their shit. They used that as an excuse to attack the whole community. I am not denying that. The difference between then and now is that gays stuck together fight against NAMBLA and their bullshit. No questions. No worries about "hurt feelings." Just a punched and deleted. Sometimes literally. :-|

Now?? The targeting and sexualizing of kids is blatant and it's being done by mostly the TQ+s ("queers") who have injected themselves in the community and use our identity as a shield to peddle their harmful rhetoric. Only this time, the gays are complacent. Why? Because of [bold]in-house[/bold] bullying that threatens to "cancel" anyone who dares speak out against these people and their tactics. There is no such thing as drag queen anything for kids. A man in drag =/= drag queen. A drag queen is specifically a character meant to entertain adults in adults only spaces. Under no circumstances should children be involved. It is the heavy-handed bullying of those who speak out against this that further galvanizes those on the outside who hate us because let's be real, all they need is a fucking reason. Sadly, there are many in the community all to eager to give them one.

It makes no sense to be concerned about being labeled a groomer, and then immediately jumping to the defense of those who are, wait for it, [italic]actually grooming children[/italic]. I don't want to be associated with these people nor assumed to be an assumed "groomer," either, which is why I don't take the incredibly counter-productive and counter-intuitive route of defending those who keep pushing adult issues, such as matters of sexuality and gender, off onto children. It's also just wrong. Let kids be kids and leave them be. I don't know why this is so difficult a concept all of a sudden.

We've gotten to a point where research on masturbation to cartoon child corn (not a misspelling) is being published in reputable journals by academics who receive university funding. I understand the knee-jerk reaction to the word "groomer" due to historical issues, but you have to understand that this is VERY different.

Damn it. I'll just 'Oh, dear' myself right now. I see it. I see it [bold]all[/bold]. Sigh.

R85 What purpose are you alleging the drag queens at Drag Queen Story Hour are grooming the children for? Do you have evidence of this - like a police complaint from a parent for example?

r87 Yes. Drag queens are, again, specifically adult entertainment. For what, is exactly the purpose, of choosing drag queens to be the ones to read to children? At times in the same garb they would wear when performing for an adult audience in a bar.

It's the same concept as having strippers read to kids. Why? What is the reason for specifically having them, of all people, read to kids other than to normalize and expose an adult activity for/to children?

This is but one example.

R88, nah, instead of just asking a different question why not answer the one I asked?

What do you allege these performers are grooming the children to do?

Have you any evidence of inappropriate behaviour (like police complaints)?

You've linked to a photograph of a performer wearing clothing which - if loud and silly - entirely appropriately covers their body. No accusations of inappropriate behaviour or the discussion of adult material appear to have been made.

Just by the by, I find drag cringey and utterly charmless but throwing around the term 'groomer' aimed at people who seem to have done absolutely nothing to merit the accusation makes the sick rise to the back of my throat. And as has been pointed out the tactic has a history.

[quote]What do you allege these performers are grooming the children to do?

[quote]What is the reason for specifically having them, of all people, read to kids other than [bold]to normalize and expose an adult activity for/to children?[/bold]

That.

[quote] entirely appropriately covers their body.

R89 You must have missed the kids getting a full on view up the skirt of that creature named as "Sasha Sota".

Those look like leggings to me. I'll concede that the photo is fuzzy and maybe my eyes are playing tricks.

As for 'normalising an adult activity' the publicity material talks about 'self expression and dress up'. Playing around with costumes, face paint and so on is a perfectly childlike activity that we all did when young.

In another context, like a show for adults, the performer might be making risque jokes and sexualised movements and so on, but so long as these activities don't form part of the kids act - and no-one has produced evidence that they have - I'm not really seeing any reasonable justification for the hysteria. It's pretty grim to see the radfems and the 'LGB alliance' et al get sucked into what appears to be a far right homophobic moral panic. I didn't agree with a lot of their positions but I wouldn't have expected them to give space and credence to this kind of rhetoric. Yet here they are proving that their hatred is not limited to the transgendered.

Private parts are meant to be private parts.

Lingerie is underwear.

Tacky drag queens are tacky.

Ok. Fair enough. I'll concede that as long as they're not using adult themes while reading, it's "passable." Although, I would argue a drag queen, as a concept, is adult themed but, whatever.

Have you seen this r92?

As I said, it's getting worse. This would be that "slippery slope" we were always beat over the head about, I reckon.

R94 'It's Not Going to Lick Itself' is certainly questionable at a kids' show Beyond that, I don't see any problems with the outfit or the dance. Both are a lot tamer than these performances by Little Mix, for example (UK girlband with a lot of young children as fans).

Thankfully, this thread turned into a polite conversation. I agree that "groomer" is now being thrown about as an all-purpose scare word, like terf or woke. When terms turn into labels they should be avoided, and anyone using them should clarify what they mean (as ConcernedEuropean requested).

On the other hand, I understand people who get upset at the drag queen + children stuff. The point of a drag queen is to lampoon/glorify femininity--why do kids need to be confronted with that? And to R92's point about dress-up being normal for kids--kids do that on their own. For me, it's just performative parenting (we're the cool moms!) but it's easy to see why people who don't encounter drag in their cultural lives might think it's some kind of propaganda.

R95 Have you seen children's movies and tv shows? They always have adult jokes hidden for the adults. A kid will read "It's not going to lick itself" and think it's telling them to eat more ice cream. An adult is going to see the obvious oral sex joke. You are whipped up by a fake conservative moral panic, and it makes you paranoid. You see something as harmless as a neon sign as child sex abuse with this lens and you have to snap out of it.

I mean, I'm perfectly happy to listen to critiques of drag as a cultural performance/art form. I personally don't like it, but what does my personal taste matter? You could argue that it is a kind of misogynist costume, I can see that, though I think others say that it's about challenging gender norms. I haven't watched enough drag to judge between the two.

It's just the groomer label that really bothered me - the people who do this don't deserve to be smeared as paedophiles: that is monstrously unfair.

R97 Hey, I was sticking up for the drag queens! (more or less). Yeah, I take your point about the double entendres, they are definitely not unknown to children's entertainment.

[quote]They always have adult jokes hidden for the adults.

And that doesn't make it okay, at all. Why are you trying to defend a wrong thing with more examples of the wrong thing?

Did the below clip go over my head as a child? Absolutely. Is it still incredibly fucked up and inappropriate to be included in a children's show? Absolutely.

In fact, maybe our entertainment as children is what's wrong with us (millennials) and how society has gotten to this point. Most of the parents bringing their kids to this are millennials.

The issue is wrapped up in the social denial of teenage sexuality. For the purposes of tabloid sensation, pederasty (sex with teenagers) has been conflated with pedophila (sex with pre-pubescent children, which has always been frowned upon in all societies). e.g. Epstein is labelled a pedophile, when (while a creepy predator) he was nothing of the sort.

A sixteen year old is very different from a six year old, and a horny male teenager is very different in their psychology from a teenage female dreaming of romance. Society is going through a moral panic at the moment when one doesn't even dare acknowledge teenage beauty, let alone teenage sexuality. (It's telling that the Swedish newspaper at R59's link headlines this bloke's statement "Teenage boys are very beautiful" as if it's the most bizarre and shocking thing ever, rather than the bleeding obvious.)

I think Austria has it right: age of consent, at least for males, should be 14. (er, not 11 as Nigeria has it...although maybe the heat brings on early puberty, including working in non-airconditioned phone scam call centers.) And I say that as someone who finds anyone under 25 wearisome. Meanwhile (and this is not to deny the vulnerability of many of them) teenage boys are blithely wacking off furiously to men on PornHub, so making a mockery of agonised discussions like this. Of course it's an irresolvable dilemma, and creeps, and infantalised adults, are with us forever.

R99 Are you competing for Frau of the year? What is the harm if the kids do not understand it? Millenials are just screwed up because they were born during the aids crisis, they were kids during 9/11, they were young adults during the recession, and the pandemic happens right when they started buying houses and settling down. The parents who bring their children to these shows are just like you. They panic about what is being exposed to their children. They think if their children see drag, they won't grow up to be homophobic. They won't kill themselves if they discover that they're gay. They're anxious that their kids won't be as culturally refined

It is so depressing and obvious how some of you make everything - EVERYTHING - about Democrats Vs Republicans.

It’s that type of limited, reductive thinking that got us to the point where there are all these kiddie lover freaks infiltrating the LGBT umbrella.

Do yourselves a favor: attempt to think of the world through the lens of common fucking sense and not make any and everything about two political parties filled with millionaires and billionaires that don’t give a fuck about ANY of us.

r102 Wins.

[100] yeah you don’t know what the fuck you are talking about. Adult men who want to have sex with underage teenagers of either sex are invariably abusive rapists. Of course a teenager can enjoy sex and they may find abuse pleasurable. But pleasure is not consent.

Don’t fuck children, folks. And don’t make apologies for people who do fuck kids. Some simple life advice that will take you a long way.

[quote] Don’t fuck children, folks.

No one is disputing this.

However, to restate the point: children are not teenagers, and teenagers are not children. Don't conflate them for the point of sensation. Leaving children out of it, it would be indeed wonderful if some men didn't want to fuck teenagers, and some of them didn't want to be fucked by men, but we don't live in perfect world. Teenage males can be a bundle of raging hormones who can't even think straight.

[quote]Adult men who want to have sex with underage teenagers of either sex are invariably abusive rapists.

Of course some are, but history shows the suggestion that all are to be arrant nonsense. (e.g. Walt Whitman, Oscar Wilde, Christopher Isherwood, etc etc , who all slept with teenagers, as well as adults.) It's the same type of claim that gays are all brainless effeminates, and all transexuals are rampaging radicals intent on undermining gender. Those of minorities that come to attention are usually the very worst representatives, but are only a fraction of the whole. However, it's an excellent way to anomalise them and dumb down the argument.

This is not to deny that harm does occur, sometimes profound harm, but one doesn't have to be an apologist to suspect that this is very far from the common experience. Studies also suggest this, but are always discounted by raw emotion, so it's not even worth going there. The whole thing gives even rational people brain freezes, because the protection of the young is an innate response in most of us.

I have R100 on block for some reason

And yet you read me. Funny that.

Don't forget Gore Vidal, Andre Gide and Arthur C..Clark, R105.

For your consideration:

He has the bad haircut and "punch me!" face of most of the characters in that YouTube/Logo series "EastSiders."

Please stop cherry picking articles about drag queens who did bad things. I can post a 1,000 times as many articles about heterosexuals who have done far worse. Should I start linking to father -daughter purity dance videos? Romani child weddings? Kiddie beauty pageants?

Jesus, when did Anita Bryant start posting here?

[quote]Adult men who want to have sex with underage teenagers of either sex are invariably abusive rapists. [quote]Of course some are, but history shows the suggestion that all are to be arrant nonsense. (e.g. Walt Whitman, Oscar Wilde, Christopher Isherwood, etc etc , who all slept with teenagers, as well as adults.) I

If you're an adult "sleeping with" a teenager, it is abuse by default because they're a minor. The rest of this post is just noise to try to "soften" what you just said, here, tbh.

Actually R015 I work in child protection, and when I say that adult men who sleep with teenagers are invariably pieces of shit, it's because I work these cases and they are pieces of shit. Every single time. I'm not "dumbing down" the argument, I'm giving you the benefit of 20 years experience and a couple of higher degrees.

Then again, people who jump to make the distinction between "real" children and teenagers, people who point to historical examples of pederasty, people who insist that teenagers get horny (no shit! really?) ... they also tend to set off a lot of red flags.

You're working at the pointy end of justice R113, which of course is going to dredge up the worst of the worst. But as any 1st year social scientist would tell you, that's irrelevant as a measurement in terms of being indicative of the whole. As for your second para: given you wish to stoop to insinuation and be a troll, two can play it: i.e. as everyone is painfully aware, those who gravitate to working with kids, like your good self... you can fill in the rest.

You're more than welcome.

[114] Well, I have a PhD in the social sciences. It's almost like I'm an expert in the area? Whereas you are just one more loudmouthed dickhead on the internet.

Research is in the eye (or, in this case, the hand) of the beholder.

[quote]Well, I have a PhD in the social sciences.

Only a PhD, dear? Surely a Masters in trolling.

Is that a smirk on his face? These types always have the "I'm superior to you smirk". They are highly educated insufferable midwits.